Seconded.
On 6/17/2008 11:36 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> Paul -
>
> So moved.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 19:17 17/06/2008, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I suggest the EC consider the two 802.11 PARs following the normal
>> PAR procedure if and only if the EC explicitly grants the 802.11 WG
>> chair a reduction of the 30 day circulation requirement to 28 days
>> for the two 802.11 PARs via an EC email ballot on a motion requesting
>> the requirement reduction.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the approval threshold for a rule waiver is per RR,
>> but I would require a >3/4 approval threshold (with all voting EC
>> members in the denominator).
>>
>> I'll start an EC email ballot if someone is willing to make a motion
>> and find a second.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Kraemer"
>> <bkraemer@MARVELL.COM>
>> To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:54 AM
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
>>
>>
>>> Tony,
>>>
>>> You've raised a number of points that I accept going forward and would
>>> certainly pledge to avoid any repeat offences.
>>>
>>> Much of what you refer to should be captured in what I might refer
>>> to as
>>> a "Chair's guide document" that collects standard practices that
>>> augment rules and procedures not otherwise covered in either the P&P or
>>> the OM.
>>>
>>> With your permission I'll take the material below and start a
>>> chapter on
>>> this topic for further consideration prior to or during the July
>>> plenary.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:05 AM
>>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
>>>
>>> I would agree that 802.11 should not be penalized in this instance;
>>> however, if we are granting an exception here it should be a one-time
>>> exception, period, and not a license for all of the newbie EC members
>>> to assume that they will be granted a one-time "get out of jail free"
>>> card.
>>>
>>> However, I would make a few observations about the process of
>>> submitting files for EC consideration:
>>>
>>> Firstly, in my understanding, it is the Chair's responsibility (and
>>> not the Recording Secretary's) to do any circulation that is required
>>> in the P&P. This is the only occasion that I can remember when a
>>> Chair has passed the problem over to the RS to execute; in reality,
>>> once he had the PDFs all James did was to circulate them as
>>> attachments to an email, which the .11 Chair could have done himself
>>> (but please see below!), so apart from increasing the RS's workload
>>> and causing the submission deadline to be missed, its not clear to me
>>> what value was added there.
>>>
>>> Secondly, there is no requirement anywhere in our P&P (nor should
>>> there be IMHO) stipulating PDF as the format for submissions. The P&P
>>> simply state that the PAR and 5C "...shall be circulated via the EC
>>> reflector...", so it isn't at all clear to me on what basis James
>>> made that stipulation.
>>>
>>> Thirdly, and as far as I am concerned, this goes for all materials
>>> that EC members need to circulate to each other, sending stuff as
>>> attachments to emails is a royal PIA for the recipients, especially
>>> for things like PARs and 5C's, or other materials where EC members
>>> need to make their own constituents aware of the material. 802.1's
>>> email reflector, for example, has a size limit on attachments as part
>>> of our (very successful) SPAM filtering measures. I also don't like
>>> gratuitously inflicting attachments of any size on members of the .1
>>> reflector; I know high speed access is commonplace these days, but
>>> some recipients (myself included) sometimes have to use low bandwidth
>>> network connections to access their email. So if I receive a file
>>> that has to be circulated to my WG, I end up posting it on my WG
>>> website, which is simply making more work for me. This also means
>>> that the unsolicited addition to my workload gets prioritized, and
>>> can fall off the bottom of the stack as a result. Far better, and a
>>> considerable courtesy to those that have to circulate the material
>>> elsewhere, is for the sender to post the material on their WG or the
>>> EC website and email the URL(s) to the EC. In fact, I would go as far
>>> as suggesting that we codify that as a requirement in our new
>>> operations manual. (Aside: There is a potential bottleneck with
>>> uploading to the EC reflector, as not all of us have upload access;
>>> however, it is worth noting that Luigi Napoli has recently
>>> implemented an uploads webpage for 802.1 that allows anyone to submit
>>> a file to an uploads subdirectory, and for the appropriate 802.1
>>> officer to be notified - see http://ieee802.org/cgi-bin/upload_8021.
>>> No reason why that shouldn't be done for the EC website, and have the
>>> EC reflector as the recipient of the notifications.)
>>>
>>> So I would respectfully request the .11 Chair to post the PAR and 5C
>>> files on the .11 website (in reality, my guess is that they were
>>> there already, and if not, they should be!) and then email the
>>> reflector with the URLs.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tony
>>>
>>> At 23:40 16/06/2008, Michael Lynch wrote:
>>>> James,
>>>>
>>>> I agree that .11 should not be penalized if the documents were
>>>> submitted to you on time.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: "James Gilb" <gilb@IEEE.ORG>
>>>> To: "STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>>>> Sent: 6/16/08 17:29
>>>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
>>>>
>>>> Pat
>>>>
>>>> Bruce sent me these on time, but I had a mix up in email and didn't
>>>> get
>>>> them posted until today.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think 802.11 should be punished for my mistake.
>>>>
>>>> Bruce will follow up and post the 5 criteria.
>>>>
>>>> James Gilb
>>>>
>>>> Pat Thaler wrote:
>>>> > James,
>>>> >
>>>> > There is a problem. Our P&P have a specific procedure for approving
>>> new
>>>> > PARs (Clause 17). 17.2 contains the requirement:
>>>> >
>>>> > "Complete PARs shall be circulated via the EC email reflector to all
>>>> > Executive Committee members no less than 30 days prior to the day of
>>> the
>>>> > Opening Executive Committee meeting of an LMSC Plenary session."
>>>> >
>>>> > You sent this today, June 16. Our Opening EC meeting is July 14.
>>> That is
>>>> > 28 days prior, not the required 30 days. There is an exemption to
>>> this
>>>> > rule for Maintenance PARs, division of existing work items and
>>> similar
>>>> > routine items but that wouldn't apply to either of these.
>>>> >
>>>> > Also, you didn't supply the 5 criteria for either of these. That
>>> needs
>>>> > to be precirculated along with the PAR for any PAR that introduces
>>> new
>>>> > functionality - which both these PARs do.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm sorry, but I don't see how we can consider these PARs in July
>>> under
>>>> > our rules.
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> > Pat
>>>> >
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>>>> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
>>>> > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 1:49 PM
>>>> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>>> > Subject: [802SEC] PARs for Friday's agenda
>>>> >
>>>> > All
>>>> >
>>>> > Here are two PARs for consideration at our closing plenary. They
>>> are
>>>> > from 802.11.
>>>> >
>>>> > James Gilb
>>>> >
>>>> > ----------
>>>> > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>>>> > This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>>> >
>>>> > ----------
>>>> > This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>>> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>>> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>>> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>>> This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>
>> ----------
>> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>> This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>
>>
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.